Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a plan within 120 days to reorganize the Engagement, Liaison, and Outreach (ELO) Office, realign essential functions into the Partner Engagement directorate of DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), identify redundancies, and improve law enforcement coordination.
The plan must include cost-benefit analysis, staffing and transition details, oversight mechanisms, and assurances of continuity for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) intelligence support.
The Secretary must certify commencement of implementation and cannot expand ELO staffing, budget, or duplicate missions elsewhere until the plan and certification are submitted.
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so chances are reasonable, but procedural barriers and competing priorities lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill directs an internal administrative reorganization with appropriately detailed planning and reporting requirements, clear timelines, and constraints to prevent premature expansion, while leaving technical implementation to the Secretary.
Centralization vs local engagement: liberals fear weakened SLTT ties; conservatives favor consolidation.
Centralization vs local engagement: liberals fear weakened SLTT ties; conservatives favor consolidation.
Likely to view the bill as a mostly administrative efficiency measure with some positive accountability features.
Supportive of reducing duplication and requiring cost-benefit analysis, but wary that centralization could weaken local partnerships and civil liberties safeguards.
Will push for explicit protections for SLTT access and transparency about intelligence-sharing impacts.
Views the bill as a reasonable, technocratic effort to improve efficiency and oversight at DHS.
Appreciates required analyses, timelines, and certification, but wants clear steps to avoid disrupting operations or weakening partner support.
Will favor measured implementation and monitoring.
Likely to favor the bill as it consolidates functions, imposes limits on bureaucratic expansion, and increases oversight of DHS engagement with law enforcement.
Sees the limitation on creating duplicative offices as a guard against mission creep.
Will push for swift implementation and stronger restrictions on future expansions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so chances are reasonable, but procedural barriers and competing priorities lower odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Centralization vs local engagement: liberals fear weakened SLTT ties; conservatives favor consolidation.
Content is narrow and noncontroversial so chances are reasonable, but procedural barriers and competing priorities lower odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill directs an internal administrative reorganization with appropriately detailed planning and reporting requirements, clear timelines, and constraints to prevent prematu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.